Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Ball must have been innocent to have fought so hard for his freedom. I find three things here very pecular- 1) Why wasn't Ball wearing the stun belt, 2) how did he manage to get the gun and 3) Amazing that the detective who shot him was the SAME ONE who testified against him.
1. Defense attorneys like their client to not look like the dangerous animal they are so as to convince the jury that he is not violent. It just "might be prejudicial" for the jury to see the hemorhoid all trussed up like he couldn't be trusted to behave himself.

2. Getting to a gun in a holster when you are the one making the first move isn't that hard. If he was within 21 feet of the Deputy, he could cover the distance and have his hand on the gun BEFORE the Deputy could draw and clear the holster. Holsters are not that hard to tear open during a full strength struggle.

They frequently get torn open in weapon retention training when you have one guys pulling on it and the wearer trying to keep possession of the weapon.
3. The Detective was in the courtroom as part of the prosecution team. Since there was only one hemorhoid / tard he could only go for one weapon at a time. Chances are the Detective's was concealed (under his coat and not visible) so the tard went for the visible one. That leaves the Detective in position to end the conflict before the tard kills anyone. A fight for possession of a weapon is a life and death strugle. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
4. This is not the first time this scenario has happened. The end result of this one seems to be benificial.
Some people just can't fathom that the bad guys aren't the cops.
